JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[SQ8]

When are we going to stand up next Thunder Squadron? anyone @Windjammer @Oscar

18 aircraft per sq, the last we saw in pictures was 2p 26. Kamra already has more than a squadrons worth of JF-17s operating anyday but a lot of these are in FCFs and/or the pilots for the new squadron are undergoing conversion.

 

[Thorough Pro]

It takes about a year to make 18 A/C and about 6 months for pilot conversion, so logically we should be able to convert at least two batches of pilots for each squadron of Thunders, specially when PAF claims that Thunder is very easy to fly and it only takes a few hours on the simulator to train the (already experienced) pilots, or lack of a dual seater is actually affecting the conversion process.

 

[MastanKhan]

It takes about a year to make 18 A/C and about 6 months for pilot conversion, so logically we should be able to convert at least two batches of pilots for each squadron of Thunders, specially when PAF claims that Thunder is very easy to fly and it only takes a few hours on the simulator to train the (already experienced) pilots, or lack of a dual seater is actually affecting the conversion process.

Hi,

Off course a dual seater is effecting conversion---. With a dual seater you progress on TWO fronts---one is training for conversion---and second is for actual combat training with a navigator.

Paf had a bad game plan---what they assessed to be easy flying this aircraft was due to the fact that better pilots were being switched over---.

The true test is when you worst pilots can fly easy---and what steps have been taken for your worst pilot to learn flying this aircraft.

 

[Arsalan]

Will the JFT have enough clearance below the tanks to mount bombs?
A

With those fuel tanks on wings there will be enough space. Not is it is on the central hard point under the fuselage!

 

[Peer Haman Shah]

According to my low knowledge PAC should try for JF18, Medium standerd.

 

[araz]

With those fuel tanks on wings there will be enough space. Not is it is on the central hard point under the fuselage!

I wonder how much of a problem it is to design the squarish tanks that Gripen uses. Would that help. I think certainly there would be space for armaments around that.
A

 

[Arsalan]

I wonder how much of a problem it is to design the squarish tanks that Gripen uses. Would that help. I think certainly there would be space for armaments around that.
A

Sir frankly speaking, you know much better than me that there are SO many things that are actually quite possible to achieve but we never even go for them. God knows why!! May be it is lack of need or may be lack of vision!! Whatever. The Squarish fuel tanks are one such thing in my view! It can surely support weapon on its sides.

However, i do emphasis that the best way will be to get those wings stronger (if we have not already done that with those wing root extensions) so it can support one extra hard point along with one carrying multiple ejector rails for two SD10 missiles. Also add one under that canopy for mission POD and you have your EXCELLENT modern day aircraft with room for generation improvement in terms of radars, avionics and weapon systems! It will be something for future!

 

[Tempest II]

I wonder how much of a problem it is to design the squarish tanks that Gripen uses. Would that help. I think certainly there would be space for armaments around that.
A

I think it might be a materials strength/rigidity and weight issue. I suspect rectangular section tanks might need thicker/more rigid design than cylindrical ones.

For the same amount of materials and stress levels (internal pressure), the rectangular tank will deform before the cylinder.

From a stress point of view (considering the dynamics in flight), cylinders are stronger.

Just did a quick check, a 1m square (1 square metre area) has a 4m circumference. A 1square metres circle has a 3.545m circumference, from an empty tank (material usage/weight) point of view, the cylinder is more efficient.

 

[Blue Marlin]

when/if the block3 get an aesa radar what are the chances of the metore being chosen as a longer range bvraam

 

[Tempest II]

when/if the block3 get an aesa radar what are the chances of the metore being chosen as a longer range bvraam

Wouldn't that depend on the choice of AESA radar? Maybe the choice of a radar may take the weapons package into consideration. I.e. The European radar might be chosen because of the weapons offered with it.

My take however is that they will remain with China. A European rada/weapons package will need to offer a significant performance increase to justify undoing the KLJ-7 related hardware already installed on Blocks 1 and 2.

I believe the Chinese can (technically and financially) meet PAF requirements considering the higher tier fighters, weapons and avionics that are producing and working on. It should not be too difficult to keep/retain PAF business on the JF-17.

The infrastructure of working with China is already in place (physical and organisational) more than Europe. There is deeper cooperation.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Wouldn't that depend on the choice of AESA radar? Maybe the choice of a radar may take the weapons package into consideration. I.e. The European radar might be chosen because of the weapons offered with it.

My take however is that they will remain with China. A European rada/weapons package will need to offer a significant performance increase to justify undoing the KLJ-7 related hardware already installed on Blocks 1 and 2.

I believe the Chinese can (technically and financially) meet PAF requirements considering the higher tier fighters, weapons and avionics that are producing and working on. It should not be too difficult to keep/retain PAF business on the JF-17.

The infrastructure of working with China is already in place (physical and organisational) more than Europe. There is deeper cooperation.

on the aesa i would expect the vixen series being chosen or even the raven. if thats the case then it would be quiet easy. but if its a chinese aesa then it would be difficult but doable. the chinese would go on ahead and put a chinese aesa on the block 3 for potentail clients. right now we dont know what pakistan is choosing here. so its hard to say.

 

[Tempest II]

when/if the block3 get an aesa radar what are the chances of the metore being chosen as a longer range bvraam

on the aesa i would expect the vixen series being chosen or even the raven. if thats the ca

on the aesa i would expect the vixen series being chosen or even the raven. if thats the case then it would be quiet easy. but if its a chinese aesa then it would be difficult but doable. the chinese would go on ahead and put a chinese aesa on the block 3 for potentail clients. right now we dont know what pakistan is choosing here. so its hard to say.

I agree on waiting for the actual outcome. I will hedge my bet on a Chinese system.


http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...-strongly-resembles-israeli-product/32108793/

The head of the JF-17 sales and marketing team, Air Commodore Khalid Mahmood, would not comment specifically on any progress being made on acquiring an AESA radar for the JF-17 Block III beyond saying, "The AESA radar project is making steady progress. Installation of the radar will add significantly to the combat potential of our aircraft. We are satisfied and happy with the progress."

No comment was forthcoming from Mahmood on Pakistan's relationship with NAV Tech.

Though unaware what level of progress has been made on selecting an AESA radar, analyst Kaiser Tufail, former Pakistani air commodore and pilot, said if a Chinese AESA radar has been selected, it may have been the only realistic option.

"Given the Western concerns about transfer of sensitive technology, which could find its way further east, I think we may have had no other option but to buy Chinese," he said.

Analyst Usman Shabbir with the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank said that from his discussions with the JF-17 team at this year's Paris Airshow, he learned that a Chinese AESA radar option had gained favor over a European offering.

 

[JamD]

I think it might be a materials strength/rigidity and weight issue. I suspect rectangular section tanks might need thicker/more rigid design than cylindrical ones.

For the same amount of materials and stress levels (internal pressure), the rectangular tank will deform before the cylinder.

From a stress point of view (considering the dynamics in flight), cylinders are stronger.

Just did a quick check, a 1m square (1 square metre area) has a 4m circumference. A 1square metres circle has a 3.545m circumference, from an empty tank (material usage/weight) point of view, the cylinder is more efficient.

Bang on the money!

Also, PAC Kamra has an entire facility for drop tank manufacturing with specialized machines, jigs and fixtures with trained technicians. They make cylindrical tanks with great ease (from sheets). A square tank will require a whole different setup, will be harder to manufacture, and will slow the production down. The facility was recently retrofitted for manufacturing of JF-17 drop tanks (2013-2014). On top of the things you've mentioned it would be a significant investment, perhaps not worth the cost. If there is a strong enough need perhaps it can be done but I don't see the need right now.

 

[MastanKhan]

I think it might be a materials strength/rigidity and weight issue. I suspect rectangular section tanks might need thicker/more rigid design than cylindrical ones.

For the same amount of materials and stress levels (internal pressure), the rectangular tank will deform before the cylinder.

From a stress point of view (considering the dynamics in flight), cylinders are stronger.

Just did a quick check, a 1m square (1 square metre area) has a 4m circumference. A 1square metres circle has a 3.545m circumference, from an empty tank (material usage/weight) point of view, the cylinder is more efficient.

Hi,

The form will not deform---because the fuel tank will not be hollow cylinder--it can be designed with a frame inside for structural strength.

And NO---cylinder does not hold more fuel---. A squarish tank with the same width and height of a round tank will hold more fuel.

You don't need to measure the tank.

Just take a glass and built a cardboard square around it---you can see the space where you can put the extra fuel---

 

[Tempest II]

Hi,

The form will not deform---because the fuel tank will not be hollow cylinder--it can be designed with a frame inside for structural strength.

I know but you will be adding weight. By weight, under pressure a rectangular tank will deform first/more.

Hi,
And NO---cylinder does not hold more fuel---. A squarish tank with the same width and height of a round tank will hold more fuel.

You don't need to measure the tank.
-

The calculation was to demonstrate that for a given volume of tank (how many litres it can hold), the cylinder is lighter and uses less material.

Just take a glass and built a cardboard square around it---you can see the space where you can put the extra fuel---

I had looked at that MK. However, this assumes you actually want to build a heavier (empty weight) tank.

Given the same amount of material, a cylindrical tank is more efficient.

Given the same area, volume, a cylindrical design in more efficient.

Given the same footprint (not necessarily area), the square/rectangular design is better assuming weight is not the limiting factor.